Decision Memo Category Southern Pine Beetle Suppression USDA

Decision Memo (Category 14) Southern Pine Beetle Suppression #1 (2005) USDA Forest Service Talladega National Forest - Oakmulgee District Bibb, Chilton, Dallas, Hale, Perry, and Tuscaloosa Counties, Alabama Proposed Action: To treat certain active Southern Pine Beetle (SPB) infested trees (spots) by cutting all SPB infested trees from the site, as well as a buffer of non-infested trees in front of the spread of the infestation. This control method involves hiring a contractor to cut and leave the designated trees lying on the ground. The treatment areas consist of 11 SPB spots located by aerial detection on June 9, 2005 and ground checked to determine SPB activity between June 10, 2005 and July 1, 2005. Access will be provided by existing unclassified roads, system roads, county and state highways. One spot (4004) was detected during 2004, was thought to have gone inactive, but is now determined to be active and growing. No new temporary road construction will be needed to access these spots. Spot # 4004 5046 5047 5049 5051 5054 5056 5058 5059 5060 5063 5065 TOTALS Figure 1: Treatment Areas Compartment Stand Acres 50 39 27 30 31 34 136 138 35 130 53 71 12 7 2 16 5 2 13 21 3 31 18 5 1.2 1.0 0.25 0.5 0.5 0.5 2.0 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 8.45 Number of Trees 115 300 46 78 112 47 260 37 85 72 50 56 1,258 Not included in this decision are 9 spots identified under “Background”, as inactive or not spreading at a rate that threatened further habitat. These spots will be monitored and receive “no action” at this time. Objectives: Quickly and effectively treat known SPB infestations, while they are relatively small (< 5 acres) to reduce the risk of future build-up of the SPB population, thus the potential loss of forest resources. Decision: I have decided to implement the proposed action as detailed above. In making this decision I considered that disturbance, including insect infestation, is a natural function of a healthy forest environment. However, given the current forest health problems on the Oakmulgee District related to the amount of loblolly, shortleaf, and pine-hardwood existing on native longleaf sites, I determined that there was too great a risk to allow SPB spots exhibiting signs of spread to persist unchecked. Decision Memo – SPB Suppression #1 - 2005 Page 1 of 20 Granted, the District has released a Final Environmental Impact Statement addressing restoration of many of these areas with forest health problems. However, this restoration is proposed through a schedule of events that balances restoration with environmental thresholds and provides means to achieve restoration objectives. Therefore I feel that, to honor our stewardship responsibility to these lands and to demonstrate sound business acumen with public resources, I should expedite treatment of those SPB spots identified as “active” or having signs of spread. This action is categorically excluded from documentation in an EA or EIS because it fits category 31.2-14 of Forest Service Handbook 1909.15-2003-2, dated July 29, 2003. (14) - Commercial and non-commercial sanitation harvest of trees to control insect or disease not to exceed 250 acres, requiring no more than ½ mile of temporary road construction, including removal of infested/infected trees and adjacent live uninfested/uninfected trees as determined necessary to control the spread of insects or disease. • • • • • • All treatment locations are SPB infestations threatening additional National Forest and or/or private resources. The total acreage involved is less than 250 acres. Less than ½ mile of temporary road will be constructed. The actions identified in this decision are similar to actions identified in a previous decision involving SPB suppression of which public comment was received on August 20, 2004. These proposed actions were evaluated in context with other decisions and proposed actions with the same watersheds and were determined to add no significant direct, indirect or cumulative impacts. The decision to implement these proposed actions under the authority of a Categorical Exclusion is based on the following findings. This categorical exclusion is appropriate in this situation because there are no extraordinary circumstances, as defined in FSH 1909.15, paragraph 30.3.2. Specifically: • • • • • The Biological Evaluation, signed July 12, 2005, by District Wildlife Biologist, Micah Thorning, determined that this action will have “no affect” on any Proposed, Threatened, Endangered and “no impact” on any Regional Forester’s Sensitive Species The proposed action is not in a floodplain, wetland or municipal watershed. No part of this project area is congressionally designated as wilderness, wild and scenic river, or wilderness study area. No part of this project area is administratively designated as inventoried roadless or research natural area. The proposed action is not considered ground disturbing, thus there is unlikely potential for loss or damage to archaeological sites, historic properties, and American Indians religious or cultural sights. Sites were evaluated for the potential of direct, indirect and cumulative resource impacts. None of the areas are on steep slopes or highly erosive soil, as per the forest soil scientist. Appropriate Forest Plan standards be will be applied, and no resource impacts were identified that could not be mitigated below significance. Decision Memo – SPB Suppression #1 - 2005 Page 2 of 20 Background: The lands currently managed as the Talladega National Forest - Oakmulgee District (District) were part of what was once the South’s most prevalent forest – the longleaf ecosystem. These District lands lie on the northern limits of the range of Alabama’s native longleaf. The topography is rolling allowing a mosaic of forest types to exist intermingled with upland sites that were historically stands of open park-like longleaf forest. Today, for a variety of reasons, many of these native longleaf sites have been converted to loblolly and shortleaf pines, and in some areas, hardwoods within these sites exist at levels that classify those sites as mixed pine-hardwood. This shift in the natural balance is producing symptoms of die-off and decline within these loblolly and shortleaf stands. This weakened condition also makes these stands highly susceptible to insect and disease infestation, specifically southern pine beetle (SPB). Once SPB populations build up in an area, they often spread beyond the stressed loblolly and shortleaf to longleaf and some loblolly deemed to be on native sites. SPB infestations are common throughout much of the southeast United States including the Oakmulgee District. Throughout much of the nineteen eighties and nineties southern pine beetle infestations reached epidemic population levels within the Oakmulgee District and central Alabama killing millions of pine trees, changing the aesthetic value of the landscape and causing millions of dollars in damage to both private and National Forest timber values. Left unchecked, these SPB infestations can kill thousands of acres of pine trees in a short period of time. Dead and dying pine trees often result in fire hazards, increasing the risk of damaging wildfires and impeding the benefits of prescribed fire. Because of the development of short-rotation commercial forests, mature pine forest as described above are not abundant on private lands. A number of associated wildlife species are considered threatened, endangered or declining and catastrophic losses of this resource are not acceptable. Specifically of concern is nesting and foraging habitat for the federally listed red-cockaded woodpecker. Stands of dead and dying trees are visually unattractive and often result in hazards to forest visitors, in the form of falling snags. On June 9, 2005 the district conducted a SPB detection flight, and located approximately 20 spots believed to be SPB infestations. These sites have been ground checked and confirmed that all of these spots are indeed SPB infestations, 11 of which are determined to be spreading and need immediate treatment. The remaining 9 were determined not to be spreading, spreading slowly or likely to reach unsuitable habitat and expire on their own accord. Three spots are within ½ mile of active redcockaded woodpecker cluster sites. (Reference Figures 3 -7: General Location Maps) The FEIS for the Suppression of the Southern Pine Beetle, Southern region analyzes three primary methods of suppression: “Cut and Remove”; “Cut and Leave”; and “Cut and Spray”. The FEIS details the circumstances under which each should be used and analyzes the effectiveness of each method. As analyzed, the “cut and remove” treatment is the most effective generally applicable treatment. This control method removes the infested trees along with breeding and developing population, and disrupts the chemical attractant that causes SPB to continue to attack pine trees in that particular spot. It also removes nearby trees available for emerging beetles to attack. The “cut and leave” treatment also disrupts the spread of the SPBs, however in this scenario the beetle larvae remain on the site in the felled trees. This presents a risk of the larvae emerging and continuing to infest nearby trees. The premise of this treatment working as a control method is that the felled tree can no longer translocate water and the heat of exposure to direct sunlight kills the larvae before they emerge. Later stages of SPB reproduction are not affected and will emerge and look for other trees to infest. Cutting is believed to disorient the emerging beetles and remove available green trees from their flight reach. In cooler season, this method is ineffective because the inner bark temperature does not reach critical temperatures. Other disadvantages to this control method are that it is expensive to implement and the felled trees remaining on site impede other land management activities, such as prescribed burning and reforestation. Decision Memo – SPB Suppression #1 - 2005 Page 3 of 20 Public Involvement: A Request for Comments for Southern Pine Beetle Prevention and Suppression for the Talladega National Forest _ Oakmulgee District was mailed to 246 recipients on May 18, 2005. We asked that they respond with comments by June 17, 2005. Within this scoping the recipients were asked to respond to a proposal for two levels of analysis. First, was an Environmental Assessment to cover multiple actions over the next five years primarily targeted at SPB prevention. Second, was input regarding the use of a Categorical Exclusion as described in this Decision Memo. Figure 2: Recipients of Scoping Letters Alabama Hiking Trail Society H.C. Moore & Son Griffin Wood Co. Inc. Hale County Commission Dallas County Commission Buchanan Timber Company, Inc. Chilton County Commission Tuscaloosa County Commission Wild Alabama Bibb County Commission Constituent Services Representative U.S. House of Representatives Seaman Timber Company, Inc. Alabama Forestry Commission Perry County Commission Bart Adam Jon Alexander A & S Timber Co. Charles Allen Lee Allan Woodland Specialist James Allen, Jr. Baugh Timber Co. Inc. James Anderson Anderson Forest Products David Andress Tuscaloosa Forestry Service, Inc. Miles Andrews Timber Management Company Keith Armstrong Gulf States Paper Corp. Frank Atchison Gibson Timber CO, INC. Randell Averitt Ricky Ayers Miller & Company Jeffery Baity Alabama Forestry Commission Tony Baker Ronald Barrett International Paper Co. Jonas Barrett Barnett Logging Ricky Barnette, Jr. Kynard Logging B.J. Baugh, Jr. Baugh & Baugh Logging Allen Bayar Bavar Logging Mark Bingham Mark Bingham Logging Co. Lester Bishop William Blake McMillan Blodel Tommy Boothe T. Boothe Logging John Borom Mobile Bay Audubon Society Ben Bouler Nanafalia Logging Luther Bowden Greene County Wood Products Leroy Bowden, Jr. Green County Wood Products Emily Bowman Tommy Brackin Tommy Brackin Logging Charles Brackin Tommy Brackin Logging Arthur Brakin Randolph & Randolph Kenneth Brewer Griffin Wood Co. Henry Brook Brook Timber Terry Brown Coatopa Timber Company Tony Brown Browns Tree and Timber Maxie Bryant Jackie Bunn J. G. Bourroughs Keefe Burt KyKenKee, Inc Shedric Callens Callens Logging Tommy Callens H.C. Moore & Sons Inc. John Callens Callens Logging Anita Callowy Calloway Thinning LLC Darrien Campbell Campbell Logging Ronnie Campbell R& H Loggins Gene Carlee Sun Rise Logging Inc. Gene Carter Rainbow Logging Inc. Charles Chapman Charles M Chapman Logging Freddie Chapman F & K Logging Alfred Cleckler Cleckler Logging Kenny Clements Clements Logging Robert Clouse University of Alabama William Colburn Colburn Logging Ray Colvin, Jr. Gulf States Paper Corp James Cooper Norman Copeland Jr. Buchanan Timber Bill Cox International Paper George Crawford David Creamer Brandon Creel Creel Logging Bobby Creel Creel Logging Glenn Creel Michael Crews Griffin Wood Co. Bruce Crocker Linden Wood Inc. Wayne Culpepper MS/AL Timberlands Doug Dailey Douglas Dailey Logging Inc. Heath Dailey Small Tract Timber Patrick Daly Alawest Scott Davis Scott Davis Timber Co John Davis International Paper Wiley Deason Bear Creek Logging Albert Deason Bear Creek Logging Josh Denney Gulf States Paper Corp Mark Devauhn International Paper John Doresky Fort Benning Project Manager Jeremy Douglas Decision Memo – SPB Suppression #1 - 2005 Page 4 of 20 Wayne Wyatt Wyatt Timber Company Inc. Lori Eckhardt Louisiana State University Joe Elliott Elliott Logging Joe Elliott Terry Elmore Tri-State Logging Inc. Albert England Albert England Logging Earnest England Jr. E&J Logging Rex Epperson Epperson Timber Co. Inc. William Epperson E and J Logging Dan Erlinger Morris Etheridge Hamilton Timber Co Gary Evans Tom Fancher Southern Pine Logging Jason Fancher Southern Pine Logging Talmage Farley Farley Forest Products Inc. Tim Farley Farley Forest Products Inc. Chuck Farley C & D Farley Logging Judy Farnetti Centreville Press James Fields James Fields Logging Earl Fleming Bowater Alabama Inc. John Florida Seaman Timber Co. Wallace Fondren Wallace Fondren Logging Larry Ford Gulf States Paper Corp George Franklin Gulf States Paper Corp David Freeman Hamiton Timber Co. Raymond Freeman, Jr. John Frye Frye Logging Eddie Fuller D & F Logging Steve Gardiner Butler & Gardiner Benny Gibson Gibson Logging Company Briggs Gibson Gibson Timber Co, Inc. Casey Carter Rainbow Logging Inc. Benny Gibson Gibson Timber Company Barry Wyatt Gulf States Paper Corp David Gilbert Gulf States Paper Corp. Richard Glasgow U.S. Alliance Stan Glass Fulton Logging, Co. John Gooder Randy Goss Griffin Wood Co. Hubert Gray Gray Logging Rolland Gray Steed Timber Co. Preston Green David Green Donice Greene Ambrose Green Freddie Green Goodlowe Green Jr. Goodlowe Green & Son Logging Jay Greene H.C. Moore & Son Inc. Russell Gregg Southern Timber Inc. Willie Griffin Griffin Logging Tommy Gullahom Sumter Timber Co. Kelly Hall Curtis Hallman Sierra Club Marc Hamaker Brook Timber Andrew Hamiter Robert Malone Wood Products Todd Hamner Southern Timber Products Curtis Harris International Paper Brian Harris Alabama River Woodlands Inc. Burt Harrison Burt Harrison Logging Bobby Harrison Barry Hart The Nature Conservancy Oscar Hayes International Paper Jerry Wyatt Van Helton Woodrow Reynolds & Son Steve Herrington Steed Timber Co. James Herron Herron Logging James Hill James Hill Logging Kent Hillman Kent Hillman Logging Inc. Danny Hilyer Allan Hixon Allan Hixon Logging Co, Thomas Hobson H & H Pulpwood & Logging Inc. Ben Holifield Offie Holifield Kykenkee, Inc. Vic Holman Matt Holtzcher Gary Horton Horton Logging David Horton Wayne Horton Logging Richard Howell, Jr. Gulf States Paper Corp Cedric Hudson Alabama Forestry Commission Robert Hughes Bear Creek Logging, Inc. Rusty Hunt Rusty Hunt Logging Mark Hyche International Paper Jimmy Ingram Ingram Pulpwood Chris Issaccson Baseline Forest Products Saul Jackson Dan & Romaletta James Patrick Jarvis Sun Belt Land & Investment, LLC Mickey Johnson Woodlands Specialists Frank Johnson Frank Johnson Logging Michael Johnson Frank Johnson Logging Mickey Johnson Mickey Johnson Timber Jeff Jones Jeff Jones Logging Steve Jones Steve Jones Logging Decision Memo – SPB Suppression #1 - 2005 Page 5 of 20 Randall Jones Larry Jordan Larry Jordan Logging Pratt Joseph Pratt Joseph Logging Mike Jung Cahaba Valley Lumber Co. Inc. James Junkin Alabama Forestry Commission Thomas Keener Keener Logging Lacy Kendrick Buchanan Timber Eric King Eric King Logging Frank King King Logging Inc. Fred Knepper Michael Kynard Michael Kynard Logging Johnny Kynard Johnny Kynard Logging J.W. Kynard J.W. Kynard Logging Robbie Langham Robbie Langham Logging Inc. Charlie Langham, Sr. Langham Logging Charles Langham, Jr. Langham Logging Richard Lanier H.C. Moore & Son Inc Frank Lavender MacMillian Bloedel Davis Lawrence Lawrence Logging Inc. Jeffery Lawrence Forestry Env. Services Inc. David Leibold Layton Lenior Timberland Logging Kelvin Lenior Timberland Logging Wayne Lewis Hunter Lewis, Jr. 3 River Logging Ed Lightsey Lightsey Logging Edward Lindsay Sudduth Land & Timber Edward Lindsay Drinkard Forestry Harry Little Ala Forest Products Inc. Judson Locke Doug Phillips Alabama Museum of Nat History Thaddeous Lockett H-T Logging Edward Lockhart E & L Logging Edward Loewenstein Auburn University Jerry Loftin Loftin Timber Co. Tony Logan Greene County Wood Product Randy Logan Logan Trucking Scott Luker Baugh Timber Co. Adrian Lynch Eric Magnus T.P. Young Logging Thomas Maher Al Historic Preservation Office Jeff Makemson Al Div of Wildlife & Freshwater Fisheries Preston Malone Preston Malone Logging Clint Mancil Gulf States Paper Corp Frank Marcum Marcum Bros. Logging Aaron Marcum, Jr. Marcum Bros. Logging Vernon Marshall Hamilton Timber Co. Eric Martin Southern Timber Co. Marc Martin Seaman Timber Co. David Mathews King Logging Joseph Mathis, Jr. B.A.S. Timber Mike McAlpine M & P Logging, Inc. James McAlpine M & P Logging, Inc. Bill McCarter Warrior Forestry Service Dianne McGee Sierra Club – Alabama Chapter John McMillan Alabama Forestry Association Brad McMillian J.T. McMillian, Inc. W. McQueen Beeker Timber Logging Dee Melton Ray Metzler Al Div of Wildlife & Freshwater Fisheries Steve Miller U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Todd Scarbrough T & D Logging Mark Mims Mims Logging Tim Mims T & B Logging Brad Mitchell Scott Davis Timber Darryl Montz West Alabama Timber, Inc. Weitzel Moore Moore Logging Jason Moore Carl Moore CMT Inc. Jerry Morris Morris Logging Tony Morton Morton Pine & Logging Davis Mounger Friends of Mississippi Public Lands Frank Mozing Hamilton Timber Co. Lamar Murphy Southern Timber Harvesting Co. Rick Nelms Cooper Marine & Timberlands Tommie Nevels Teressa Newborn Bennett Nichols Scott Davis Timber Will Norris Will Norris Logging Mike Oakley Alabama Power Company Suzanne Oberholster Jerry Odom Smith Logging Benny Oglesby Wayne Ousley Earl W. Ousley Pulpwood Jack Owen Jeff Parnell Parnell, Inc. Joseph Parnell Parnell, Inc. Sam Parsons Myra Patterson Jimmie & Shannon Payton Payton’s Logging Randy Pearson Russell Peel Rusty’s Tree Service Steve Stallworth Stallworth & Johnson Decision Memo – SPB Suppression #1 - 2005 Page 6 of 20 Gary Phillips Phillips Brothers Logging Johnny Pickering International Paper Robert Pittard Mickey Pope Mickey H. Timber Co. Rick Powell Gulf States Paper Corp Bobby Powell B & L Timber William Powell Hamilton Timber Co. Norman Prestidge J & J Logging Edith Price Chuck Pritchett Sumter Timber Jimmy Pritchett Canal Wood David Pylant Cullman Audubon Society Harold Quinney, III T. P. Young Logging Windell Rainey Lonnie Rainey Logging Lonnie Rainey Lonnie Rainey Logging Donnie Ramey Joseph Wood Products Allan Ramsey Weyerhaeuser Terry Randall Gulf States Paper Corp Jeff Randolph Randolph & Randolph Charles Raybon Raybon Resources, Inc. Matt Revel L.O.G’N Force Terry Riddle Terry Riddle Logging Robert Riser Darryl Robertson Darryl Robertson Logging Steve Rogers Woodlands Specialists Archie Rogers James Rogers James M. Rogers Logging Clyde Roper Saco Wood Inc. Bernard Sanders Griffin Wood Co. Hershel Scott Gale Creek Glenn Scott Timberland Logging Danny Sexton Sexton Logging Co. Inc. Patrick Sexton Sexton Logging Co. Inc. Charles Shafer Georgia Pacific Corp. Gavin Sheffield Fulton Loggers Wade Sheffield Linden Wood Inc. Rickey Shelby H.C. Moore & Son Inc. Bernard Shelton H.C. Moore & Son Inc. Mike Sievering Al Div of Wildlife & Freshwater Fisheries Derrick Simmons Linden Wood Adelle Simpson Bibb County Cahaba River Authority Rolfe Singleton Gulf States Paper Corp. Stephen Smelley Forestry Env. Services Inc. Larry Smith Smith Logging Gary Smith Gary Smith Logging James Smith Smith Logging Mardie Smith Timberland Logging Inc. Larry Smith Gulf States Paper Corp Robert Smith Robert D. Smith Logging Tony Smith Timberland Logging, Inc. Charles Smith Scotch Lumber Co. Lee Smith Lee Smith Logging Co. Glenn Smothers Charles Snelson Snelson Logging Jesse Snow Snow Logging Ty Sockwell Lomax Pulpwood Breck Spiller A & S Timber Co., Carl Spurgin Carl Spurgin Logging, Inc. Larry Stange Stange Logging Allan Stephens International Paper Jeffery Stockman Blue Ox Forestry, Inc. David Stone, R. F. Olon Belcher Lumber Co. Inc. Wayne Strawbridge State of Alabama Jack Sturgis Bill Sudduth Sudduth Land & Timber Scott Sudduth Sudduth Land & Timber Jerry Sullivan Jerry Sullivan Logging Ann Sweeney Birmingham Audubon Society Armond Swindle Alawest Jack Tatum State of Alabama Leroy Tavel Tavel Logging Robert Taylor Wallace Logging Co. Inc Rick Taylor J & A Taylor Logging Lynn Tennefoss National Audubon Society William Terry Warrior Wood Co. Dennis Terry Southern Timber Products Dannie Tharp Reynolds Wood Products Paul Thompson Sumpter Timber Co. Mike Thompson Trinity Land & Timber LLC Eddie Thornhill Marengo Forest Products John Tiley Gulf States Paper Corp David Tingle Kent Hillman Logging Mike Todd International Paper George Trawick Log South Inc. John Tucker Sumpter Timber Co Joe Twardy Weyerhaeuser Jefferson Varner Campbell Logging The public involvement efforts on this project resulted in three responses. All three of the respondents provided comments regarding the proposed Environmental Assessment. No significant issues were Decision Memo – SPB Suppression #1 - 2005 Page 7 of 20 raised relative to this proposed action or the use of a Categorical Exclusion for these type actions, there were no comments specific to this proposal and the respondent raised no significant issues. Findings Required by Other Laws: National Forest Management Act: This decision is consistent with the Revised Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (RFLMP) as required by the National Forest Management Act. The project was designed in conformance with forest plan goals, objective and standards. Specifically this project meets Forest Plan goals for reducing risks from insects and disease (Goal 3), maintaining forest and plant community types not abundant on private lands (Goal 1), managing watershed to provide resilient and stable conditions (Goal 4), and providing habitat to support desirable levels of selected species (Goal 16). Applicable Forest Plan standards are located in the project file. Clean Water Act: The RFLMP contains direction to ensure all projects comply with the requirements of the Clean Water Act. Therefore by following that direction, this project is in compliance with the Clean Water Act. Endangered Species Act: The RFLMP was developed with the benefit of extensive consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). The USFWS concurred with the Forest Service’s determination that the implementation of the RFLMP is “not likely to adversely affect” federally-listed endangered or threatened species or their habitats. A site-specific evaluation for the project has been conducted for this project and the determination of effects regarding federally-listed endangered or threatened species or their habitats, and sensitive species or their habitats have been documented in the attached Biological Evaluation. The District is in compliance with the Alternative Consultation Agreement prepared pursuant to the Joint Counterpart Endangered Species Act, Section 7 Consultation Regulations issued on December 8, 2003 (Federal Register, pages 68254 - 68265). National Historic Preservation Act: This project is not considered a ground disturbing action and no cultural resource survey has been conducted. Appeal Rights- This decision is not subject to appeal pursuant to Forest Service regulations at 36 CFR 215.12f. Implementation- Implementation of this decision may begin immediately. Contact Person- For additional information contact Joe Fowler at 9901 Highway 5 South, Brent, Alabama 35034 or Phone (205) 926-9765, E-mail: jofowler@fs.fed.us. _/s/ Cynthia Ragland______ Cynthia Ragland District Ranger July 13, 2005___ Date The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, gender, religion, age, disability, political beliefs, sexual orientation, or marital or family status. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA's TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD). To file a complaint of discrimination, write USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, Room 326-W, Whitten Building, 14th and Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, DC 20250-9410 or call (202) 720-5964 (voice and TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer. Decision Memo – SPB Suppression #1 - 2005 Page 8 of 20 Figure -3: General Location Map – Spots 5056, 5058, and 5060 Decision Memo – SPB Suppression #1 - 2005 Page 9 of 20 Figure 4: General Location Map – Spots 5046, 4004, and 5063 Decision Memo – SPB Suppression #1 - 2005 Page 10 of 20 Figure 5: General Location Map – Spots 5059, 5054, and 5051 Decision Memo – SPB Suppression #1 - 2005 Page 11 of 20 Figure 6: General Location Map – Spots 5047 and 5049 Decision Memo – SPB Suppression #1 - 2005 Page 12 of 20 Figure 7: General Location Map – Spot 5065 Decision Memo – SPB Suppression #1 - 2005 Page 13 of 20 Biological Evaluation For Proposed, Endangered, Threatened, & Sensitive Species Compartments 27, 30, 31, 34, 35, 39, 50, 53, 71, 130, 136, 138 SPB Cut and Leave Talladega National Forest Oakmulgee District Hale, Bibb, Perry, and Chilton County, Alabama I. Introduction This BE addresses the proposed action to cut and leave timber that has been infested with Southern Pine Beetles (SPB) in compartments 27, 30, 31, 34, 35, 39, 50, 53, 71, 130, 136, and 138. The proposed project areas consist of mainly overstocked 20-30 year-old loblolly pines. A. Location Spot # 4004 5046 5047 5049 5051 5054 5056 5058 5059 5060 5063 5065 Compartment Figure – 1: Treatment Areas Stand Acres Number of Trees 50 12 1.2 115 39 7 1.0 300 27 2 0.25 46 30 16 0.5 78 31 5 0.5 112 34 2 0.5 47 136 13 2.0 260 138 21 0.5 37 35 3 0.5 85 130 31 0.5 72 53 18 0.5 50 71 5 0.5 56 APPROXIMATE TOTAL: 8.5 1258 New Temp Roads (miles) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 B. Objectives The objectives of this biological evaluation (BE) are to: 1. Determine how the proposed action may affect Federally proposed, threatened, endangered, and sensitive (PETS) species and their habitats that may occur within the project areas. 2. Provide biological input to ensure that the USDA Forest Service is compliant with the FSM 2670.3, FSH 2609.13, and the Endangered Species Act (ESA). 3. Provide management requirements to mitigate any potential negative effects that implementing the project may have upon PETS species or their habitats located within the project area. 4. Adhere to the Forest Plan implementation requirement of a site-specific biological evaluation for a project area. Decision Memo – SPB Suppression #1 - 2005 Page 14 of 20 This BE was prepared in accordance with the Forest Service Handbook 2609.13 and regulations set forth in Section 7 (a) (2) of the Endangered Species Act. II. Proposed Management Actions The project areas consist of over-stocked loblolly stands that have now been infested with Southern Pine Beetles. To prevent further damage to these areas, a cut and leave treatment has been prescribed. The trees included in the cut will be all infected trees plus an additional buffer approximately 40 feet in width of green trees in front of the infestation. III. Species Considered and Species Evaluated All Forest PETS species relative to the project area were considered for this project. See Table 1 below for species considered and included/excluded from analysis for this project based on whether or not they occur or potentially occur within the area of analysis. Table 1: Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive Species Considered and Included/Excluded from Analysis – Compartment 16 Stand 9 Timber Thinning, Oakmulgee Ranger District, 2005. (List derived from Longleaf Ecosystem Restoration Project EIS, Revised Land and Resource Management Plan, National Forests in Alabama, Jan. 2004, and the Regional Forester’s Sensitive Species List, Updated August 7, 2001). USFWS Endangered Species Red-cockaded woodpecker (Picoides borealis) Wood stork (Mycteria Americana) Alabama canebrake pitcher plant (Sarracenia rubra var al) Tennessee yellow-eyed grass (Xyris tennesseensis) Mitchell’s satyr (Neonympha mitchellii) USFWS Threatened Species Bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) Blue shiner (Cyprinella caerulea) Goldline darter (Percina aurolineata) Mohr’s Barbara’s buttons (Marshallia mohrii) Habitat Open pine forests with large, old trees Shallow freshwater and estuarine wetlands Acidic, highly saturated deep, peaty sands or clay Thinly wooded. Moist to wet soils year round along streams Shrub-sedge marshes, forest swamps, and beaver ponds Habitat Near large bodies of water Tributary streams in NE Ala. Affonee water shed Shale-bedded streams in a grass sedge community Occurrence on Oakmulgee RD Many active cluster sites Infrequent sightings 1 occurrence on private land within Oakmulgee RD Just below fall line in Bibb County Occasionally encountered in appropriate habitat Occurrence on Oakmulgee RD No known occurrences Documented as extirpated and outside the influence of any Oak. Mgmt actions No known occurrences No known occurrences Considered but Excluded from Analysis Considered in BE 2 2 2 2 Considered but Excluded from Analysis 2 Considered in BE 1,2 1,2 2 Decision Memo – SPB Suppression #1 - 2005 Page 15 of 20 Georgia rockcress (Arabis Georgiana)* Inflated heelsplitter (Potamilus inflatus) White-fringeless orchid (Platanthera integrilabia)* Rocky bluffs and slopes along water courses Clean gravel riffles with some current Wetland areas A few occurrences on the northern part of the Oak. No known occurrences No known occurrences 2 2 2 * Candidate species Regional Forester’s Sensitive Species Rafinesque’s big-eared bat (Corynorhinus rafinesquii) Southeastern myotis (Myotis austroriparius) Bachman’s sparrow (Aimophila aestivalis) Small-flowered buckeye (Aesculus parvifolia) Apalachicola wild indigo (Baptisia megacarpa) Cypress-knee sedge (Carex decomposita) Ravine sedge (Carex impressinervia) Alabama croton (Croton albamensis) Southern lady’s slipper (Cypripedium kentuckiense) Large witchalder (Fothergilla major) Longleaf sunflower (Helianthus longifolius) Harper’s heartleaf (Hexastylis speciosa) Carolina spider lily (Hymenocallis caroliniana) Alabama warbonnet (Jamesianthus alabamensis) Alabama snow-wreath (Neviusia alabamensis) Arkansas oak (Quercus arkansana) Thorne’s beaksedge (Rhynchospora thornei) Eared coneflower (Rudbeckia auriculata) Bay starvine (Schisandra glabra) Nevius’ stonecrop (Sedum nevii) Royal catchfly (Silene regia) Lanceleaf trillium (Trillium lancifolium) A crayfish (Procambarus marthae) Alabama shad (Alosa alabamae) Crystal darter (Crystallaria asprella) Habitat Caves, large hollow trees in riparian areas Caves, large hollow trees in riparian areas Open pine woods w/ thick ground cover Open, mesic hardwood communities Moist shaded ravine slopes and stream banks Cypress swamps and coastal plain ponds Late successional mature riparian habitat Glades and barrens Moist, shaded, ravine slopes Ridge top and dry rocky longleaf pine forests Glades, barrens, and rocky ridge tops Bogs and Bay galls River corridors and sand banks Moist shaded-topartially-sunny riparian forests Late successional riparian forests Ridge top and rocky longleaf pine Seepage bog or pond margin w/ open sun River corridors and stream banks Shaded hardwood slopes Bluffs and rises in rich coves Forested grasslands Moist to sunny riparian areas Alabama river basin Streams and rivers Afonnee watershed Occurrence on Oakmulgee RD Occasionally encountered in specific situations Rarely encountered in specific situations Commonly encountered in the appropriate habitat Rarely seen on the forest Can be encountered in appropriate habitat Commonly encountered in the appropriate habitat Low occurrence in appropriate habitat No known occurrences Only one occurrence on the Oakmulgee RD Occasional occurrence within appropriate habitat Only one recorded occurrence Common in appropriate habitat Common in appropriate habitat Common in appropriate habitat No known occurrences Common in appropriate habitat Common in appropriate habitat Common in appropriate habitat Common in appropriate habitat No known occurrence No known occurrence Common in appropriate habitat No known occurrence No known occurrence No known occurrences, but potential to occur Considered but Excluded from Analysis 2 2 2 2 1,2 1,2 1,2 1,2 1,2 2 1,2 2 2 Considered in BE 2 2 2 2 2 2 1,2 2 2 1,2 1,2 1,2 Decision Memo – SPB Suppression #1 - 2005 Page 16 of 20 Goldstripe darter (Etheostoma parvapinne) Alabama darter (Etheostoma ramseyi) Backwater darter (Etheostoma zonifer) Skygazer shiner (Notropis uranoscopus) Frecklebelly madtom (Noturus munitus) Coal darter (Percina brevicauda) Freckeled darter (Percina lenticula) A caddisfly (Cheumatopsyche bibbensis) Cocoa clubtail (Gomphus hybridus) A caddisfly (Hydropsyche hageni) A caddisfly (Hydroptila paralatosa) Morse’s long-horn sedge (Oecetis morsei) Alleghany snaketail (Ophiogomphus alleghaniensis) Treetop emerald dragonfly (Somatochlora provocans) Laura’s clubtail (Stylurus laurae) Rayed creekshell (Anodontoides radiatus) Mobile river basin Mobile river basin Turbid sluggish water over muddy substrastes Swift currents over sand-gravel substrates Swift currents over cobbled substrates in medium to large streams Swift currents over gravel substrates Deep swift currents over sandy substrate Clean oxygenated water and riparian areas Sand silt substrates in medium to large rivers Small sandy streams Small streams near transition of the fall line Small sandy streams near transition of the fall line Flowing currents over cobble-gravelsubstrates. “Pristine streams” Trickling flow over sphagnum moss in bogs Sand-mud substrates within small wooded streams Moderate gradient sluggish currents over mud sand or gravel No known occurrences No known occurrences, but potential to occur No known occurrences, but potential to occur No known occurrences, but potential to occur No known occurrences, but potential to occur No known occurrences, but potential to occur No known occurrences, but potential to occur No known occurrences, but potential to occur Commonly found in appropriate habitat No known occurrences, but potential to occur No known occurrences, but potential to occur No known occurrences, but potential to occur No known occurrences, but potential to occur No known occurrences, but potential to occur No known occurrences, but potential to occur No known occurrences, but potential to occur 1,2 1,2 1,2 1,2 1,2 1,2 1,2 1,2 1,2 1,2 1,2 1,2 1,2 1,2 1,2 1,2 Alabama heelsplitter Clean gravel riffles with No known occurrences, but (Lasmigona complanta some current potential to occur alabamensis) Alabama hickorynut Clean gravel riffles with No known occurrences, but (Obovaria unicolor) some current potential to occur Ridged mapleleaf Clean gravel riffles with No known occurrences, but (Quadrula rumphiana) some current potential to occur Alabama creekmussel Clean gravel riffles with No known occurrences, but (Strophitis connasaugaensis) some current potential to occur Alabama rainbow Clean gravel riffles with No known occurrences, but (Villosa nebulosa) some current potential to occur Notes: 1 Project areas are not within the species’ range in Alabama. 2 1,2 1,2 1,2 1,2 1,2 Project areas are not appropriate nor potentially appropriate habitat for the species. IV. Evaluated Species Survey Information Decision Memo – SPB Suppression #1 - 2005 Page 17 of 20 The Longleaf Ecosystem Restoration Project (LERP) required an Environmental Impact Statement level Biological Evaluation to assess, survey, and determine what species could be potentially affected. Nine of the twelve sites are on the west side, which has been surveyed for the LERP. Due to similar stand characteristics in those project areas relative to the adjacent stands surveyed, I considered that information in conjunction with the amount and distribution of potential suitable habitat, to create Table 1. Inventories have been performed for red-cockaded woodpeckers and only three active clusters were found within a ½ mile of the project area (one each in compartment 35, 39, and 30 stands 3, 7, and 16 respectively). Three of the twelve bug spots were said to be located within or near an adjacent SMZ. I surveyed those areas and found that the cutting unit boundary slightly overlapped the SMZ. However, no PETS species were found during the surveys and with the lack of both topography and ground disturbance, the overlapping treatment areas would not cause additional concern for the adjacent streams. In addition to the terrestrial and aquatic information attained, a group of botanists performed an unprecedented botanical survey of 13,000 acres for the LERP. No PETS plants were identified to be within the project areas. Their inventory will serve as a baseline for sensitive plant occurrences for this project and in the future. I assessed the need to conduct site-specific inventories of PETS species for this project using direction in the Forest Service Manual Supplement R8-2600-2002-2. Based on this assessment, I concluded that no additional surveys for PETS species were necessary to analyze and disclose effects, and to provide protection adequate for maintaining viability of PETS species that may occur on the Oakmulgee District. For those species not already covered by inventories for the affected areas, either the proposed action would have beneficial effects or more information on the number and location of individuals would not improve the project design or reduce effects. V. Environmental Baseline for the Species Evaluated The Oakmulgee Ranger District lands lie on the northern limits of the range of Alabama’s native longleaf. The topography is rolling allowing a mosaic of forest types to exist intermingled with upland sites that were historically stands of open, park-like longleaf forest. However, today many sites once historically longleaf have been converted to loblolly and short leaf pine stands. The stands that have been infested by the SPB in compartments 27, 30, 31, 34, 35, 39, 50, 53, 71, 130, 136, 138 are just a few of the many areas that consist of overstocked loblolly pines. The endangered RCW appears to have had an 18% decline on the Oakmulgee, which was documented in October of 2003. Much of this decline is largely attributed to the loblolly decline and die-off of the older planted loblolly stands on the Oakmulgee District. Initiating a cut and leave treatment may decrease some potential foraging habitat in the future, but preventing the spread of the SPB is a must for maintaining and preserving the GQFH that we currently manage. No PETS species have been documented from the proposed project area, due in large part, to the age of the project area. The foraging habitat, at present, is marginal for the RCW. Decision Memo – SPB Suppression #1 - 2005 Page 18 of 20 VI. Effects of Proposed Actions on Each Species Evaluated There three active RCW clusters within a half-mile of compartments 30, 35, and 39 project areas. There are no active RCW clusters within the cut and leave boundaries. There are three project areas that may require the felling of trees within the SMZ. Those areas have been surveyed for PETS species on July 8, 2005. Upon surveying the areas, it was determined that the cutting unit boundary slightly overlaps the SMZ boundary and the proposed trees within that area would be directionally felled away from the stream. In addition, this project was set up to be treated with hand crews and the trees left on site, thus no ground disturbing activities, such as the use of heavy equipment, skidding, etc, will be evident within the project areas. There are no known occurrences of any Sensitive Species listed in Table 1. VII. Determinations of Effect and Rationale There are three project areas that, within a ½ mile radius, contain one RCW cluster each. The other nine project areas contain no RCW clusters that currently or would potentially use the project areas for nesting or foraging. In lieu of the fact that these project areas contain marginal foraging habitat at best, the proposed action would have a “no affect” determination for the red-cockaded woodpecker. Due to the small scope of the individual project areas and the amount of surveying previously performed for the Longleaf Ecosystem Restoration Project EIS (February 2005) in and around the project areas, and that there are no known occurrences of these species in the area of analysis, the proposed project should have “no impacts” on any of the Regional Forester’s Sensitive species listed in the above table. Approved by: /s/ Micah Thorning 7/12/2005 Micah Thorning Wildlife Biologist Oakmulgee Ranger District Talladega National Forest VIII. References and Data Sources Date NatureServe. 2004. NatureServe Explorer: An online encyclopedia of life [web application]. Version 4.1 NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia. Available http://www.natureserve.org/explorer . Accessed: November 09, 2004 Decision Memo – SPB Suppression #1 - 2005 Page 19 of 20 USDA Forest Service. 2005. Regional Forester’s Sensitive Species List BE for Longleaf Ecosystem Restoration Project: National Forests in Alabama, Talladega National Forest, Oakmulgee District. USDA Forest Service. 2005. Longleaf Ecosystem Restoration Project. Final Environmental Impact Statement. National Forests in Alabama, Talladega National Forest, Oakmulgee District. USDA Forest Service. 2004. Forest Plan BA for Revised Land and Resource Management Plan: National Forests in Alabama. Management Bulletin R8-MB 112A. USDA Forest Service, Atlanta, GA. USDA Forest Service. 2004. Revised Land and Resource Management Plan of the National Forests in Alabama. USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. 2005. Alabama’s Federally Listed Species by County: Updated – April 19, 2005. Daphne Ecological Services Field Office. Website: http://daphne.fws.gov/es/specieslst.htm. USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. 2003. Recovery plan for the Red-cockaded woodpecker (Picoides borealis): second revision. U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, Atlanta, GA. Decision Memo – SPB Suppression #1 - 2005 Page 20 of 20